Anders1 brief in Pennsylvania

2025Court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders1 brief, with an attached Turner/Finley2 “no-merit” letter, along with a petition to withdraw as ____________________________________________ 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

2016Appellate counsel has filed an Anders1 brief and a petition to withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley.2 Upon review, we affirm and grant the petition to withdraw. ____________________________________________ 1 Counsel filed two briefs pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

2025Court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders1 brief, with an attached Turner/Finley2 “no-merit” letter, along with a petition to withdraw as ____________________________________________ 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

2016Appellate counsel has filed an Anders1 brief and a petition to withdraw pursuant to Turner/Finley.2 Upon review, we affirm and grant the petition to withdraw. ____________________________________________ 1 Counsel filed two briefs pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).

2019As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel seeks to withdraw his representation pursuant to Anders and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159 , 978 A.2d 349 (2009).

2019Pursuant to Anders and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa. 159 , 978 A.2d 349 (2009), when counsel determines that after a conscientious review of the record, there are no non-frivolous issues for review, and seeks to withdraw from representation, counsel must petition the Court for leave to withdraw and (1) provide in the accompanying brief a summary of the procedural history and facts of the case, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes might arguably support the appeal; (3) set forth ____________________________________________ 1 Anders v. Calif

2016Relying on Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), we held a constitutional right to counsel arises where a parolee raises a “colorable claim”: (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.

2015Relying on Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), we held a constitutional right to counsel arises where a parolee raises a “colorable claim”: (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present. 1 See Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 3 Hughes, 977 A.2d at 24 (

2015In his appeal, Appellant claimed: 1) the Commonwealth erred in not allowing Appellant access to evidence “that would play a significant [sic] role in [Appellant’s] defense”; 2) the trial court erred in failing to strike improper remarks by the prosecutor during her closing argument; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel; 4) “[p]erjury by the Commonwealth”; 5) the trial court lacked jurisdiction regarding N.L.’s testimony; and 6) the trial court erred in “allowing the prosecution to redirect witness F.B.” See Commonwealth v. Quinones, 43 A.3d 525 (Pa. Super. 2012), unpublished memorandum at 3.